Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication, filed on February 25, 2026.
Claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 are amended, claim 34 is canceled, and new claim 35 is added. Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, 31-33 and 35 remain pending in the application.
This action is in response to Applicant’s responses filed on February 25, 2026. have been considered but are deemed moot in view of new ground of rejections below.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, 31-33 and 35 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim (claims 19-20 and 22-27) limitation(s) is/are: “…. means for receiving a user prompt; means for selecting a large generative artificial intelligence model (LXM) from a plurality of LXMs based on user context information associated with a user providing the user prompt; means for generating a prompt based on the user prompt; means for observing user responses of a user to an output received from in response to the prompt; means for categorizing the user responses based on detected visual cues of the user, wherein the visual cues include at least one of facial expressions of the user or gaze direction of the user; means for identifying, based on the categorization, one or more portions of the output that elicited the categorized user responses; means for inquiring the LXM about prompt parameters or content characteristics that caused the identified one or more portions of the output to elicit the categorized user responses; and means for updating a selected user profile based on information on prompt parameters received from the LXM to include or increase prompt parameters that elicited the user responses ” in claims 19-20 and 22-27 .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, 31-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters et al (US 20140324749 A1).
With respect to claims 1,10, 19 and 28, Peters et al teaches
receive a user prompt ([0076] FIG. 1, user's interactions with the Digital Content System 2. The user 1's interaction with Emotional Intelligence Engine at step S40, prompting a user for user input);
select a large generative artificial intelligence model (LXM) from a plurality of LXMs based on user context information associated with a user providing the user prompt ([0033] FIG. 5 using an Artificial Neural Net as a Pattern Recognition System, a GSR sensor as the PD input, and predicting whether or not the user will answer the current question. FIG. 5, using an Artificial Neural Net (ANN) artificial intelligence implementations);
generate a prompt based on the user prompt (0076] FIG. 1, user's interactions with the Digital Content System 2 alter its digital content state(s). The user 1's interaction with Emotional Intelligence Engine at step S40, prompting a user for user input, having received user input);
observe user responses of a user to an output received from the LXM in response to the prompt ([0084] FIG. 3, to monitor a user 1's response);
categorize the user responses based on detected visual cues of the user, wherein the visual cues include at least one of facial expressions of the user or gaze direction of the user ([0004] through facial recognition software with images from a computer-mounted camera. [0070] data of users as part of the feedback to adapt to elicit a desired user experience or outcome. feedback can be used to decide what action to take. response signals are classified. [0083] emotional category or state);
identify, based on the categorization, one or more portions of the output that elicited the categorized user responses ([0004] through facial recognition software with images from a computer-mounted camera. [0070] data of users as part of the feedback to adapt to elicit a desired user experience or outcome. feedback can be used to decide what action to take. response signals are classified. [0083] emotional category or state);
inquire the LXM about prompt parameters or content characteristics of the prompt that caused the identified one or more portions of the output to elicit the categorized user responses ([0004] through facial recognition software with images from a computer-mounted camera. [0070] data of users as part of the feedback to adapt to elicit a desired user experience or outcome [0075] FIG. 1, Emotional Response System 8 and Decision System 10. The filtered data is sent to the Emotional Response System 8 at step S18, which classifies the filtered data); and
update a selected user profile based on information on prompt parameters received from the LXM to include or increase prompt parameters that elicited the user response ([0021] profile associated with modified program state data to determine emotional response type. computing device updating profile associated with a predetermined response with updated physiological data received).
With respect to claims 2, 11, 20 and 29, Peters et al teaches
obtain user context information from a source of physical context information in the computing device; select a user profile from among a plurality of user profiles based on the user context information and the user prompt; generate an enhanced prompt based on the user prompt and information included in the selected user profile; submit the enhanced prompt to the LXM; and update the selected user profile based on the observed user responses ([0021] profile associated with modified program state data to determine emotional response type. computing device updating profile associated with a predetermined response with updated physiological data received).
With respect to claims 4-5, 13-14, 22-23 and 31-32, Peters et al teaches obtain user context information from a source of physical context information in the computing device; select an LXM from a plurality of LXMs based on the user context information and the user prompt; submit to the selected LXM a prompt that is at least partially based on the user prompt; and provide feedback configured to enable fine tuning of the selected LXM based on the observed user responses to the output received from the selected LXM ([0004] through facial recognition software with images from a computer-mounted camera. [0070] data of users as part of the feedback to adapt to elicit a desired user experience or outcome. feedback can be used to decide what action to take).
With respect to claims 6, 15, 24 and 33, Peters et al teaches LXMs are adapted for different user profiles and user context ([0072] FIG. 1, shown is a high-level description of various components of the system. as a first step S10, a user 1 interacts with a Digital Content System 2).
With respect to claims 7, 16, 25 and 34, Peters et al teaches determine a location of the user based on the user context information; and select a LXM from the plurality of LXMs based on the user context information and the user prompt by selecting one of the plurality of LXMs that is adapted for the determined location of the user ([0080] FIG. 2, a table 200 Table 200 may include contexts to implement)
With respect to claims 8, 17 and 26, Peters et al determine an activity of the user based on the user context information; and select a LXM from a plurality of LXMs based on the user context information and the user prompt by selecting one of the plurality of LXMs that is adapted for the determined activity of the user ([0080] FIG. 2, a table 200 Table 200 may include contexts to implement).
With respect to claims 9, 18 and 27, Peters et al teaches obtain user context information from a source of physical context information in the computing device; select a user profile from among a plurality of user profiles based on the user context information and the user prompt; select a LXM from a plurality of LXMs based on the user context information and the user prompt; generate an enhanced prompt based on the user prompt, information included in the selected user profile, and the selected LXM; submit the enhanced prompt to the selected LXM; and update the selected user profile based on the observed user responses, and providing feedback configured to enable fine tuning of the selected LXM based on the observed user responses ([0076] after prompting a user for user input, after having received user input, after providing an indication of some audio or video to the user. program state data was communicated to the EIE 20).
With respect claim 35, Peters et al teaches generate a subsequent prompt based on the updated selected user profile (claim 4. determining a probability of receiving subsequent data corresponding to a subsequent emotional response type).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC M WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-4043. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISAAC M WOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163